Category Archives: State Sovereignty

The long-term plan for REAL ID is to force its biometric ID functions on federal, state, local and private entities for all transactions. Thus, ID confirmation by a distant bureaucracy becomes permission for essential daily activities including banking, doctor visits, transit, school attendance and purchases — including guns.

. . .By participating in REAL ID, Pennsylvanians will be subjected to scrutiny by a host of federal agencies with every swipe of a REAL ID card. This is de facto gun registration, only worse. Once a gun buyer is identified, other information such as military service, purchases, rentals, travel, and medical history will be easily cross-referenced and subjected to interpretation. It’s inevitable that politicized standards will emerge that can be used to deny Pennsylvanians the right to keep and bear arms — everyone except violent criminals and politicians’ bodyguards.

“All 56 states have submitted some documentation of their status with respect to the material compliance benchmarks or “elements” of REAL ID to DHS since 2009. On the basis of the total dataset of states reporting, all states meet or commit to meet 83 percent of the material compliance benchmarks, which DHS believes may understate state progress.”

Americans have taken note of the fact that demands for ID and even the swiping of their driver’s license has exploded. Now that resistance by the states to the national/international ID card has been largely overcome – watch out! REAL ID will be increasingly required for just about every thing you need, including guns.

Back in 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns were already smacking their lips at the prospect of using REAL ID for gun control.

Recommendation 3: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should require REAL ID-compliant identification for all gun purchases after December 1, 2014. read more

One little known fact about REAL ID is that there is no statutory limit on “official purposes” that the REAL ID can be required for. (There are currently three official purposes; boarding a commercial airliner, entering a federal building and nuclear facility) What this means is that the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security has unfettered authority to add anything she likes to official purposes that require a REAL ID. That could be guns, ammo, prescriptions . . . anything.

“The new license meets rigorous security requirements and will not only upgrade our system but enhance customer service as well,” said Michael C. Thompson, Commissioner for the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.

At this point, Oklahomans are frustrated and the news of any changes that could help speed up the process are sure to be greeted with a huge sigh of relief and little scrutiny.

A little scrutiny is in order.

The deadline for meeting the standards of the REAL ID Act is January 15, 2013.

The Real ID Act passed in 2005 imposed federal guidelines that use INTERNATIONAL standards for state driver’s licenses and ID documents

REAL ID licenses are to be

•machine readable

•contain biometric data

(including facial biometrics)

This and other information is to be shared

•nationally

•internationally

There are 18 initial benchmarks (39 benchmarks total) to the Real ID Act of 2005 that, once they are achieved, a state can consider to be in “material compliance” with the Act. A state is in “full compliance” with the Real ID Act upon meeting all 39 of the benchmarks.

Once material compliance is achieved a state may request to be able to place a gold star on their state license to indicate that the card is acceptable for “federal identification purposes” from the DHS.

Spring of this year seven states were named as being the naughty foot draggers regarding meeting the 18 Real ID benchmarks. Oklahoma is listed as one of those laggard seven states and for good reason-our state passed a law prohibiting implementation of the federal Real ID Act in 2008.

Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. ANN, tit. 47, § 6-110.3 (2007) (The State of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 through the operations of that or any other state department. . .

The President of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License took it upon himself to help the Department of Homeland Security pressure and threaten these last remaining rebel states:

“It’s their last opportunity to get on board with the REAL ID rules or face consequences. . . . REAL ID is no longer a policy matter, the REAL ID debate is over. REAL ID is now part of DHS’ ongoing operations.”PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bIrU)

What are the “consequences” of not having a Real ID? Here is what we are told;

“In the future, only those state issued Driver Licenses and Identification cards which are fully compliant with the REAL ID act of 2005 will be authorized for use as identification for official federal government purposes, such as boarding commercial aircraft and entering certain regulated federal facilities.” Alabama DMV-STAR ID

Does this mean we won’t be able to fly? In a word-no. We will still be able to fly. A passport will work as well as a military ID. Of course any government issued photo ID means biometrics and carries with it the some of the same concerns as Real ID. Any lesser ID may require secondary screening procedures, but you can fly without a Real ID. As far as the federal buildings. That will be interesting. Barring US citizens from certain federal building will probably set off a constitutional showdown.

Oklahoma was not alone in their opposition to the Real ID Act. At least 25 states passed a law or resolution prohibiting the implementation of Real ID in their states. This was a historic level of rebellion and one that both red and blue states participated.

Thirteen states have laws prohibiting compliance with the REAL ID Act. Even so, DHS believes that some of these states already issue secure identification documents consistent with the standards of the regulation. Link

These states may not sign up for the gold star just yet, but with a wink and a nod, they are just as surely undermining the will of the people by meeting the first 18 benchmarks of Real ID. To state it simply, these states are positioned to do the bidding of the Department of Homeland Security by meeting the requirements of the Real ID Act while retaining plausible deniability about violating their states’ law that prohibits implementation of the Real ID Act.

At least nineteen states are now in compliance with the Act. Twenty-six more are reported to have committed to meet the standards before the (new) deadline. (Dec. 1, 2014) link

So where does Oklahoma stand on the 18 (Real ID) benchmarks?

I will show you that Oklahoma is merely one benchmark away from compliance with this international ID scheme that caused an unprecedented uproar by the states following its introduction in 2005.

Oklahoma has progressed from meeting 9 of these benchmarks in 2008 to currently meeting 14 of the 18 Real ID benchmarks. (3 of the benchmarks pertain to formalizing commitment by the state to REAL ID. State’s that have passed a law prohibiting Real ID implementation are forgiven these benchmarks by the Dept. of Homeland Security. That is the “wink and a nod” Do in reality, Oklahoma is really only one benchmark away from being considered Real ID compliant.)

Real ID benchmarks 1-6

Real ID Benchmarks 7-15

Real ID Benchmarks 16-18

Doesn’t appear that the law prohibiting implementation of the provisions of Real ID slowed us down much, does it?

Some of these 18 benchmarks are sensible measures that many states were already working on prior to Real ID anyways.

Let me explain briefly why: the digital facial photo is a biometric suitable for use with facial recognition software. In fact, facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice. Why? It is not the most accurate biometric for identification purposes but it does allow us to be identified in public without our knowledge or consent. Never mind that we have the right to go about our business, as long as we are not a criminal or suspect, without be investigated. The Supreme Court has upheld our right to anonymity on several occasions in recent history.

Here is just one example;

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

The inaccuracy of facial recognition could cause anyone to be misidentified which would introduce the unfortunate person host of unpleasant possibilities. But, I suppose, it is ‘good enough for government work,’ as they say. But it gets even worse.

After the initial 18 benchmarks are met, the states will proceed to implement the next 21 benchmarks, step by step enrolling us into a global biometric identity system.

“The main ideology for defining the design of the DL/ID is the minimum acceptable set of requirements to guarantee global interoperability. “

Myself as well as many other policy watchers that care to know, have been warning for years that our government intends to use those DL photos, conveniently combined with our personal, biographical information to not just identify us in public absent of any specific, articulable suspicion; they intend to use our facial biometrics to investigate and even predict based on the associated data- whether we are more or less likely to present a threat to government. As of late, these intentions have been loosed from obscure, seldom read government documents and have been printed in black and white for the world to see.

In addition to scanning mugshots for a match, FBI officials have indicated that they are keen to track a suspect by picking out their face in a crowd.

Another application would be the reverse: images of a person of interest from security cameras or public photos uploaded onto the internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an officer to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.

Oklahoma residents who prefer to not be enrolled into this biometric identification system ought to be asking their representatives why the state is continuing in the fulfillment of the Real ID Act in spite of the law which clearly expresses the will of the people to not participate in the international biometric identity scheme.

Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Policy with the Center for Immigration Studies put out her yearly progress report on Real ID. Real ID opponents fairly bristled at the glowing portrayal she gives of the highly unpopular biometric identification card scheme.

We know that 25 states passed either a law or resolution against implementing the Real ID Act but if you read Ms. Kephart’s report, you might wonder just what all the fuss was about since she claims that,

“Overall the report finds that there is substantial compliance sought across the board by all states and territories. . .”

Michigan Representative, Paul Opsommer, answers back,

“We do not see ‘tremendous value’ in pursuing ‘REAL ID standards’ as this report attempts to assert,” said Opsommer. “These are state policy positions we are pursuing on our own, irrespective of REAL ID.”

Janice Kephart is so dedicated to the Real ID cause that she even dropped by my little blog recently to reassure readers that

“There is no national ID here. Not even close.”

What a relief! After years of study and worry about Real ID being a national, no! An international ID, to be precise, I can finally rest easy because I have it on good authority that Real ID is no such thing by Ms. Kephart.

Sarcasm aside, at least Kephart is not trying to hide the hated Real ID behind the cute little star that is gracing the face of state driver’s licenses that meet the federal standards imposed by Real ID which would indicate to most that their Real ID or “STAR ID” card, is indeed a national ID. Some of these same astute Americans will tell you that the national standards imposed by Real ID on state driver’s licenses and ID cards, are also international standards leading them to the conclusion that not only is Real ID a national ID, it is also qualifies as an international ID as noted by a knowledgeable reader of AxXiom For Liberty in his response to Ms. Kephart,

International standards, international organizations and an international organization named a “hub” and “backbone” in the Final Rules issued by DHS in January 2008, HMMM!

Janice Kephart’s progress report on Real ID, while it is a very helpful guide for loyal opponents to the Real ID Act in helping to flush out the state’s that have either followed the will of the people or betrayed them by forging ahead with the Act that was formally opposed in 25 states, also does a grave disservice by claiming achievements for Real ID that it doesn’t deserve as Rep. Opsommer illustrates in his response to Kephart’s ‘REAL ID Implementation Annual Report‘

Michigan State Representative and House Transportation Chair Paul Opsommer (R-DeWitt) said that a recent report put out by the Center for Immigration Studies, titled the ‘REAL ID Implementation Annual Report’, misrepresents the notion of ‘compliance’ and actually makes the case that the federal law that would turn driver’s licenses into national ID cards is not needed.

“We do not see ‘tremendous value’ in pursuing ‘REAL ID standards’ as this report attempts to assert,” said Opsommer. “These are state policy positions we are pursuing on our own, irrespective of REAL ID.”

Before REAL ID was passed in Washington by dubious methods, there was already a negotiated rule making process going on with the states to make sure they were not giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, and that licenses were made out of tamper-resistant materials from secure card production facilities.

“REAL ID not only repealed that process, but did so in a way that creates a national ID card that puts unelected federal bureaucrats permanently in charge of wireless computer chip, facial recognition technology, fingerprint, and foreign data sharing decisions,” said Opsommer. “For cheerleaders of this national ID card campaign to highlight that states continue to pursue secure standards on their own, even in those states that have not authorized REAL ID or have passed laws opposing it, as somehow indicative of mass acceptance or compliance is nothing more than a public relations gambit.”

Janice Kephart, true believer in the Real ID cause and Director for National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, stopped by to leave a comment on my blog singing the praises of Real ID and denying that it is a national ID. I was traveling when she left the comment and had little time and I will admit, little patience to respond to Ms. Kephart. Fortunately, someone else stepped in and gave a great rebuttal to Kephart’s claims. (You can read Gene’s reply at the bottom of the post in the comments section)

Paul Henry of Floridians against Real ID has been tireless in his activism and efforts to reverse the federal Real ID Act in his state for years now. Paul is also a retired law enforcement officer and one that worked specifically on driver license fraud and other identity-related cases. He too earned a visit from Janice Kephart and his reply to her was most thoughtful as well as extremely thorough. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about Real ID.

Do you wonder;

Would Real ID have stopped the 9 11 hijackers? Or illegal immigration?

The problem with UN Agenda 21 is not that it came from the United Nations but that our government leaders have embraced the plan and have worked diligently to naturalize the policy into US law and national, state and local policies. The principles of government promoted by the UN and it’s Agenda 21 are antithetical to our form of government that has traditionally put great emphasis on private property rights. This emphasis on individual liberty and property rights is largely responsible for the historic success of United States as a nation.

The implementation of the tenets of Agenda 21 is nothing short of subversion. This has nothing to do with environmental stewardship. It is about control!

There are battles being waged all over the United States as citizens and legislators struggle to protect fundamental property rights against multitudes of non-government organizations and agencies carry out the goals of Agenda 21.

Below is information on two efforts taking place in Oklahoma to defend against the implementation of contrary UN goals, a little history on how the UN policy came to America, one example of how damaging it is to industry and innovation in America and a new agreement (signed Feb 11, 2012) between the EPA and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

____________________________________________________

Two efforts to push back taking place in Oklahoma right now. Your support is crucial.

On a state level; HJR 1072, Support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act by Rep. Charles Key. This measure reiterates the intent of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act which would end membership of the US to the United Nations.

HJR 1072 urges Congress and the President of the United States pass legislation and take steps to end membership of the United States in the United Nations. Read HJR 1072

This measure was referred to the House Rules Committee on Feb. 7, 2012 but it needs to be scheduled for a hearing in the Rules Committee.

Let the Rules Committee leaders know that it is very important that HJR 1072 gets scheduled and heard!

Since the mid 1970s, both the United Nations and the United States have been moving toward ever-tightening “public” control of land use.

By: Henry Lamb – Sovereignty.net

Ownership of land is the foundation of freedom in America. The hope of owning even a small plot of ground compelled our forefathers to brave incalculable risks crossing the ocean and challenging the wilderness. Land ownership was so cherished by our nation’s founders that they guaranteed that government could not take private property without just compensation paid to the land owner. This founding principle has eroded dramatically over time, especially since 1976.
The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I) met in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the conference report was entitled simply “Land.”

Here is an excerpt from the Preamble to that item:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
This policy document was agreed to by the United States. Among the U.S. delegates were William K. Reilly, former EPA Administrator, and Carla Hill, former Trade Negotiator in the Bush Administration.

Administrator Jackson signed the first Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) during the 26th Session of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, held in Nairobi, Kenya in February 2011. The MOU identifies areas for strategic cooperation, including strengthening environmental governance and regulatory capacity in developing countries; creating healthy urban communities; facilitating the transition to a green economy; responding to global challenges such as climate change; and providing scientific leadership.

WHEREAS the United Nations Environment Programme (hereinafter referred to as UNEP) is the leading organization within the United Nations system in the field of environment;
WHEREAS the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as EPA) is to protect human health and the environment within the United States and EPA may, consistent with applicable law, cooperate with other nations and organizations to protect the environment globally;

Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius reveals the plan to ensure that the government takeover of our health care becomes hopelessly entrenched.

(For Oklahoman’s who are serious about resisting this there are three things listed below that you can do now to stop it.)

First they shock the heck out of us with the whole health care reform law, then wear us out fighting it (even in our own states where leaders have vowed to oppose it), we pass our little resolutions, throw some papers at the court and wonder what else we can do. We are tired.

Sebelius plans to add a little sugar and if history bears her out, we will get used to the idea and eventually accept it and forget all about our silly little principles and move on to the next big battle that Big Momma Gov. also intends to win.

January 19, 2012 –

“The more we educate people about the law, the more they’ll be able to take advantage of the benefits. The more they take advantage of the benefits, the harder it will be for opponents to take those benefits away. Once you have something and you like it and you’re using it, you will fight with your own member of Congress to keep it.” (HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius)

This strategy may insult you but it may not a bad one. When you really break it down you will find the reason in it.

While most Americans say they oppose the Health Care Reform Laws what most really oppose is the government forcing an individual to purchase health insurance. But there are a lot of other little goodies mixed in to ease that bitter pill. Goodies like insurers being forced to cover your kids till they are 26.

Big Momma Gov. has been taking our temperatures; continuous polling of the American public shows that we aren’t nearly so opposed the portions of the law that happens to directly benefit us. We should be though. Those goodies come at the same price as the individual mandates-more government control and less liberty. Remember that.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. –Thomas Jefferson

So while we are outraged (and rightly so!) on principle, Sebelius is simply betting that our love of comfort and expediency is stronger than our backbone.

At some point we must either prove our mettle or just give up and go quietly into that good night. I am telling you all this for a reason. We have a small window of opportunity right now to actually stop this.

Please don’t wait for the Supreme Court. No matter what the Supreme Court says about the individual mandate, the takeover of our health care will still proceed. It may proceed a little more or less quickly, but it will proceed unless we choose to take action.

If you do not want ObamaCare and you are tired of rolling over for one outrage after another here are three important things that you can do to put Big Momma Gov. back in her place.

#1 Get educated!

The policies placed by our state legislature, more than anything, will determine the future of health care in Oklahoma. Learn how the legislative process works so you can advocate effectively for the correct outcome.

. . .last year’s HB 2130, dealing with the health insurance exchanges, is still a live round. This highly controversial bill passed the OK House by a narrow margin on March 17th, 2011. Due to backlash the bill was not heard in the Senate; however, since it passed the House and simply was not heard yet in the Senate, it is still an active bill.

Location: First Assembly of God Church in Norman, 2500 E. Lindsey, Norman, OK

Go to this class. Amanda Teegarden will give you a crash course in how to make a difference in the outcome at the state capitol and with your legislators. If you don’t get OK-SAFE Action Alerts-sign up now! They are infrequent, informative and free.

#2 Get Informed!

Knowledge IS power! There are people out there that actually make a living understanding government policy. A few of those people also have a passion for free markets and free people. Never miss a chance to learn from them.

Here is the information you need to really understand the issue so that you can communicate clearly with your elected officials, your family, your friends. Never doubt the power of persuasion especially when you have the facts to back you up.

Also see;

A whole lot of work has went into compiling, researching and comprehending all of this information that is neatly presented on this website just for you to put to good use in keeping Oklahoma free.

On the eve of the 213th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, laying the intellectual groundwork of nullification, the people of Ohio exercised their power and nullified the insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Ohioans passed Issue Three, a constitutional amendment to preserve their right to choose their own health care and health care coverage. Preliminary returns indicated a wide margin of victory, with more than 60 percent approving the amendment. The amendment makes it illegal for any local, state or federal law to require Ohio residents to purchase health insurance, effectively nullifying a key component of the PPACA.

“This signifies that state level resistance to federal power is not just an old idea relegated to history books,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “It’s something that’s alive and well right now.”

Ohio became the tenth state to reject the insurance mandates in the PPACA.

“James Madison said that power over objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State would remain with the states. Health care choices clearly fall into that category,” TAC communications director Mike Maharrey said. “Ohio sent a strong message to D.C. tonight. We are not going to just sit back and accept your unconstitutional power grabs.”

On Nov. 10, 1798, the Kentucky legislature adopted resolutions authored by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. In these resolutions, Jefferson explained the states’ power to judge the constitutionality of an act, while also asserting that unconstitutional federal acts hold no force.

He wrote, “That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress…”

Jefferson continued, “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”

As the federal government continues to grow, states have begun to push back more aggressively. Fifteen states have defied the federal government and legalized medicinal cannabis, and six years after the passage of the Real ID Act, states continue to successfully resist its implementation.

“Nullification is so simple, even a 3-year-old can do it. You just say, ‘No!’” Boldin said. “Washington D.C. will never willingly limit itself. It’s up to the states to put a check on federal power and say, ‘No!’ when Congress passes these unconstitutional acts. Ohio stepped up and did that tonight. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.”

Amanda presented a clear, lucid and powerful 45 minute presentation of the research she has spent months working on.

The presentation laid bare the ugly guts of the federal health care reform by describing it by its most basic components.

}Health Care Reform – is really about the use of IT to implement a nationwide health information network (NHIN), that will enable the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and that allows a growing global surveillance system to function.

And that;

}Electronic Health Records – Reform is predicated on the creation of a standardized, interoperable electronic health record (EHR) on every single individual

This system is;

}Cradle-to-Grave – EHRs are used for data collection, aggregation and reporting and are intended to track a person from birth to death. (Longitudinal)

And;

}EHRs are universal and to be shared globally – not only within our government, but with foreign governments, universities, and other third parties.

}Requires Standardization and Interoperability – to establish uniformity and compatibility in data collection, regardless of jurisdiction

It gets really personal;

}EHRs include each person’s genetic information – and will be used for research purposes without the knowledge or consent of the person

Part III Office of the National Coordinator/ Government+Industry +Academia = PPPs /One “Fused” System

Part IV State Initiatives

Part V Privacy & Security

Part VI Conclusion

Your personal, medical information flows from you to the health IT data collection system to the prying eyes of the federal government and research universities to the private sector and even foreign organizations.

Especially noteworthy were the points made about the inclusion of health information into law enforcement and intelligence data fusion.

Fusion Center: A collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and/or information to the center with the goal of maximizing the ability to detect, prevent, apprehend, and respond to criminal and terrorism activity. Source: Recommended Fusion Center Law Enforcement Intelligence Standards March 2005

Purpose – the elimination of any barrier to information exchange and sharing, regardless of jurisdiction. Information is to be shared nationally and internationally.

As noted in the notes section of slide 31;

The Fusion Center Guidelines have now been updated to incorporate public health and health care community information.

This is possible due to policy changes allowing the seamless flow of information across boundaries, and because all state systems, including the health care system use common sets of standards and are interoperable. Both the Fusion Centers and the Health Care System are NIEM Compliant – both are part of the Nationwide Health Information Network.

The result – one fused system.

Read more about the integration of “public health and healthcare communities into the homeland security intelligence and information sharing process.” here

Slide 41 touches up our medical and genetic information used for research purposes.

There are a few other surprises and outrages contained in the presentation, so be sure to take a look at it.

Amanda concludes;

The American People Are NOT Slaves – Nor simply ‘carbon-based life forms’[as one federal document refers to us]

Government, via health care reform and other federal initiatives, is establishing a globally networked and integrated intelligence enterprise – one that includes an extraordinary amount of extremely personal, detailed information about the America people.

Government, in it’s attempt to be an all-knowing technocratic “god” and to satisfy the IT industry’s insatiable, ever-changing appetite, is doing an end-run around human dignity and nullifying our God-given rights to life, liberty and property.

And gives the joint committee seven recommendations;

1.Repent – not kidding here

2.Do not establish a state-based Health Insurance exchange – it will be the same as the Federal government’s version

3.Allow people to escape HIT/HIE system without penalty; do not penalize providers who opt not to adopt EHRs or participate in this system

“In welcoming China, Europe is swimming with the tide of history; America is struggling against it.”

That is the most coherent quote from this tail-chasing article from the Economist on Chinese direct investments abroad. The article mostly seems to argue that Americans ought to get over it like the Europeans have and welcome our communist friends in with open arms. Of course, the article then goes on to admit the English (that is the people of England!) find getting into bed with China almost as distasteful as their American counterparts.You can read that article, Welcome, bienvenue, willkommen, here

Should we welcome China with open arms? I remain unconvinced.

After reading this report written by Amanda Teegarden, Executive Director of OK-SAFE (Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise) who was our eyes and ears at the recent US-China Conferences held last week in Utah, I am even less enthusiastic.

“On behalf of the people of Utah, I beg you for your continued partnership with Utah” Utah Governor Gary Herbert to the Chinese officials and business interests present at the U.S.-China 2011 Trade, Education & Culture Conference, 7-14-11

Noticeably missing from the announcement is the fact that the “Early Innovators” grants are to fund implementation of the Information Technology (IT) infrastructure needed to operate Health Insurance Exchanges, a cornerstone of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “ObamaCare.” More

The creation of Health Insurance Exchanges is a cornerstone of PPACA (ObamaCare), without which there would be no socialized health care plan. The plan requires an IT infrastructure to be in place in order to function. No Exchanges, no ObamaCare.

Last week’s news:

Republican-led OK House passes HB 2130, an “ObamaCare” Enabler

The OK House passed, albeit narrowly, a controversial piece of enabling legislation authored by Speaker Kris Steele; HB 2130, paves the way for the further implementation of “ObamaCare” in Oklahoma via health care exchanges. Read more

On March 22, 2011 Oklahoma News on 6 reports:

Oklahoma Governor Proposes Alternative To Federal Health Care Law

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has announced a proposed alternative to President Obama’s health care law, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Governor Fallin sent a letter to state lawmakers Tuesday asking them to pass House Bill 2130. Read more

Governor Fallin seems to want Oklahomans to believe that the she took the 54 million from the federal government to create health information exchanges for implementation of Obamacare so that she could better protect them from the federal government’s Obamacare. This is a great example of bafflegab.

Most people faced with such conflicting, incongruent information along with a reluctance to believe that our “conservative” elected leaders would be so fullapelosi, will throw up their hands and go back to their busy lives. That is exactly why such nonsense works on us. Fortunately there are a honest few that know the issues and will tell you what this is all really about.

Here are some of the remarks made by just two of those kind interspersed with Mary Fallin’s statements from her letter to Oklahoma lawmakers.

“Regardless of which entity sets up the exchange, the Department of Health and Human Services is given power to determine minimum requirements for medical services of all kinds, including the people who provide the services, as well as what the patient pays.”

“. . . opponents may never have more power to chart Obamacare’s course than they do right now. In particular, the decisions that federal and state officials make today could determine whether the 2012 elections produce a Congress and president who are willing to repeal the law. In other words, the iron is hot.

Congressional Republicans appear to grasp the weight of this moment. They are doing everything they can to ensure that Obamacare never sees the year 2014: forcing votes on repealing and de-funding the law, and undertaking a two-year campaign to expose its harmful effects. Unfortunately, their efforts are being undercut by their friends back home.

Rather than beat their plowshares into swords, Obamacare opponents in most state capitols are laying the bureaucratic foundations for the law’s new entitlement spending and lending it legitimacy by accepting its debt-financed federal grants.”

Fallin writes:

Under current law as outlined by the PPACA, the federal government will begin establishing a federally designed and run health insurance exchange in 2013 in all 50 states except those that have begun implementing their own state-based exchanges. If we do not develop our own exchange, if we instead do nothing, then we will be powerless to oppose the creation of a federally run program in Oklahoma.

Michael F Cannon writes:

Running their own exchanges won’t empower states to prevent both the most economical and the most comprehensive health plans from disappearing from their markets. . . .Nor can state-run exchanges prevent other dimensions of quality from eroding.

. . .There is no good way, or even a less-bad way, for states or the feds to implement Obamacare’s exchanges or other central elements. Permitted to stand, Obamacare will reduce Americans’ incomes, harm their health, and decrease their freedom

Fallin writes:

“. . .the Oklahoma Health Insurance Exchange we are seeking to create will be an online health insurance market that empowers consumers by providing vastly improved access to information on private insurance products and expanding the purchasing power of individuals and small businesses. Private insurance products will be sold to meet individual needs, insurers will compete to promote real choices for consumers and the free-market will work to lower costs”

Dr. Rosenwasser says:

“Regardless of which entity sets up the exchange, the Department of Health and Human Services is given power to determine minimum requirements for medical services of all kinds, including the people who provide the services, as well as what the patient pays.”

Fallin writes:

“If we do not pass HB 2130 and implement an Oklahoma-based exchange, the results will be devastating for those of us who oppose ObamaCare and the federal intrusion it represents. Without an Oklahoma exchange, the state is virtually guaranteed to be subject to a federally run. . .”

Michael F. Cannon writes:

“But federal control is not just the exchanges’ default setting — it’s the only setting.

In sum, states can impose harsher regulations than Obamacare requires and can choose who sits on their exchange’s board. That’s it.

Running their own exchanges won’t empower states to prevent both the most economical and the most comprehensive health plans from disappearing from their markets. Affordable plans will disappear because Obamacare requires all purchasers to buy whatever coverage Sebelius mandates as “essential,”

“ If ObamaCare persists, exchanges will be bureaucratic nightmares. If it is repealed or declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, states that set up exchanges will just have wasted time, money, and effort.

These are good reasons for not establishing exchanges, but there is another still more compelling. The sovereign states are not supposed to be agents of the federal government. It is properly the other way around.”

Fallin concludes her letter pleading with state lawmakers to vote for HB 2130;

“. . defend Oklahoma against the federalization of our health insurance by voting for HB 2130.” Read more

The assessments of these two knowledgeable professionals also happen to agree with the assessment of our local tried and true conservative group OK-SAFE. They also back up their assessment with the facts that you can read for yourself.